TOPIC: Classical Theory
- the law was applied strictly without consideration of human element (no determination of accused's sanity)
Under the classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free Will. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely
free will to choose between good and evil. When he commits a felonious or criminal act
(delito doloso), the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily,i.e., with freedom,
intelligence and intent. Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.
FACTS:
1. 27 December 1994, at 11:00am: There was an ongoing mass when the accused walked towards the center of the altar and sat on the Bishop's chair while the latter was giving his blessing. The bishop assistant first tried to plead the accused to move out but accused said he would not move out no matter what. Rogelio Mararac, the security guard, was then summoned.
Some of the churchgoers summoned Rogelio Mararac, the security guard at the cathedral.
Mararac went near accused-appellant and told him to vacate the Bishop's chair. Accused-
appellant stared intensely at the guard. Mararac grabbed his nightstick and used it to tap
accused-appellant's hand on the armrest. Appellant did not budge. Again, Mararac tapped the latter's hand. Still no reaction. Mararac was about to strike again when suddenly accused- appellant drew a knife from his back, lunged at Mararac and stabbed him, hitting him below his left throat. Mararac fell. Accused-appellant went over the victim and tried to stab him again but Mararac parried his thrust. Accused-appellant looked up and around him. He got up, went to the microphone and shouted: "Anggapuy nayan dia!" (No one can beat me here!). He returned to the Bishop's chair and sat on it again. Mararac, wounded and bleeding, slowly dragged himself down the altar.
SPO1 Conrado Francisco directing the traffic outside rushed to the cathedral after receiving report. He asked Estrada to put down the knife, the latter obeyed. When Cief Inspector Wendy Rosario, who was attending the church, went near and pick up the knife, he accused embraced Rosario and they wrestled with each other. The accused was subdued and a leather scabbard was found after he was frisked.
Mararac was dead after a few minutes of hospital arrival.
2.
DEFENSE: accused-appellant's inability to properly and intelligently enter a plea because he was suffering from a mental defect. Accused was confined at Baguio General Ward prior to the crime. prosecution failed to prove the crime of murder because there was no evidence of the qualifying circumstances of treachery; that there was unlawful aggression by the victim when he tapped accused-appelant's hand with his nightstick; and that accused-appelant did not have sufficient ability to calculate his defensive acts because he was of unsound mind.
ACCUSATION: accused "pretended to be weak, tame and of unsound mind;" that after he made the first stab, he "furiously continued stabbing and slashing the victim to finish him off undeterred by the fact that he was in a holy place where a religious ceremony was being conducted; the plea of unsound mind had already be ruled upon on 02 January 1995.
3. Accused, while on preventive imprisonment, the jail warden wrote a letter requesting that he be transferred to a mental ward since Estrada is causing panic among the inmates and jail personnel.
4. A resident physician of Baguio General Hospital testified that the accused had been confined at BGH from 18 February 1993 to 22 February 1993 for Schizophrenia, paranoid, chronic, paranoid type.
5. Nevertheless, he was found guilty of murder Art. 248 of the RPC and was sentenced to death penalty.
ISSUE:
W/N accused is guilty of murder notwithstanding his mental insanity?
RULING:
The sanity of the accused is yet to be determined. Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity, he who invokes sanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. The evidence must refer to the time preceding the crime.
The case id remanded to the Trial Court for the conduct of a proper mental examination to determine competency to stand trial.By depriving appellant of mental examination, the trial court effectively deprived appellant of a fair trial and the proceedings before the court are therefore nullified. He who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. The absence of direct proof, however, does not entirely discount the probability that the accused was not of sound mind at that time. In passing the question of the propriety of suspending the proceedings, the test is found in the question of whether the accused would have a fair trial with the assistance which the law secures or gives. There are 2 distinct matters to be determined under this test (1) whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent to provide his counsel with information necessary or relevant to constructing a defense and (2) whether he is able to comprehend the significance of the trial and his relation to it. The determination of whether a sanity investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally in the discretion of the trial court. In the case, the trial court took it solely upon itself to determine the sanity of the accused. The trial judge however is not a psychiatrist or psychologist or some other expert equipped with the specialized knowledge of determining the state of a person’s mental health. The court should have at least ordered the examination of the accused, especially in the light of the latter's history of mental illness.
Comments
Post a Comment